Gizmodo editor Brian Lam's email to Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/61295 <comment><USER3> tl;dr from the affidavit:

      [Suspected CA penal code violations by Chen]
      496(a) - Buy or receive stolen property (felony)
      499c(b)(3) - Without authority make [photographic copy of] a trade secret (felony)
      594(b)(1) Maliciously damages property of another valued over $400 (felony)

Gray Powell last saw the phone when he put it in his bag on the floor, which was subsequently knocked over. He left with his uncle at closing time, unaware of his loss. A drunk guy gave the device to Hogan in the belief that it was his. Hogan took it home and realized it was worth money. Next day, he and a roommate found Gray Powell on LinkedIn and Hogan recognized him from the previous evening in the bar. Hogan removed the stickers with serial numbers.

Gizmodo, via Chen, paid Hogan $8500 or $7500, including $5000 in cash, and promised a bonus if Apple launched a phone by July and it was the same device. Chen damaged the phone during his teardown, rendering it inoperable. Gizmodo published their story on 4/19. Hogan's roommate called Apple the same day and informed them of Hogan's possession and plans to sell it. Gizmodo editor Brian Lam refused a telephone request from Steve jobs to return the device, demanding a written confirmation from Apple.

When police attempted to contact Hogan and his other roommate (not the informant), they tried to destroy evidence by throwing away Hogan's computer and SD cards, all of which were later found, along with the phone stickers. Hogan's roommate was arrested on unrelated outstanding warrants.

...

On the facts in the affidavit, it looks bad for Gizmodo/Gawker. Admittedly, I've said that since the outset. Much depends on who authorized payment and how, and what Chen was told by his supervisor(s) about his legal position, if anything.

Edit: corrected an inaccuracy about when the roommate called Apple, which I had put in the wrong paragraph.

<comment><USER4> Very nice recap of the important points of the affidavit.

A couple other items of note:

The detective's summary relates the facts concisely in terms of the crimes believed to have been committed, as follows:

"Suspect Brian Hogan found or stole a prototype iPhone 4G that was accidentally left at a restaurant by Apple employee Robert 'Gray' Powell. Hogan identified the owner of the phone as Apple Engineer Gray Powell through the contents of the phone and through Internet searches. Rather than return the prototype phone to Powell and/or Apple, Hogan subsequently sold the iPhone [to] Jason Chen in Fremont for $5000. Upon receiving the stolen property, Chen disassembled the iPhone, thereby causing it to be damaged. Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video, which were subsequently published on the Internet based magazine Gizmodo.com."

California Penal Code 499c(b)provides: "Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following . . . (3) Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret." ["Copy" is defined in 499c(a)(7) to mean "any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article."] Violation of 499c(b)(3) is a felony.

The real damage here consists of revealing Apple's trade secrets to the world, and it was apparently done deliberately for direct financial gain (even if that gain did take the form of hits to the Gizmodo site).

The investigation is being led by the San Mateo County REACT unit, which often works in cooperative investigations between the local D.A.'s office and the U.S. Attorney's office. So far, we have not seen any involvement publicly of the U.S. Attorney's office in this case. That does not mean, though, that they are not involved. If the economic harm stemming from trade secret thefts is significant (as it appears to be here), the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 might also be used as a basis for prosecution under federal law. It provides in relevant part as follows: "Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for . . . interstate . . . commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly . . . steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information . . . shall . . . be fined under this title [i.e., up to $5 million] or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."

A final note on how these sorts of matters tend to unravel for the malefactors. The recitals of probable cause that one or more crimes have been committed, as set forth in the affidavit, concern Jason Chen _individually_ and _not_ his employer (meaning that he personally will be charged in any indictment that is filed). Mr. Chen has retained his own separate criminal defense lawyer to defend himself (<http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202453303236>). Prosecutors have broad discretion in such cases on how to fashion the charges brought and also concerning any plea deals struck. If the goal here is ultimately to get to Gizmodo/Gawker, who do you think will be the first to incriminate them?

<comment><USER5> YOU MAY DOWN VOTE ME but:

First thing first: Gizmodo should have taken high road, and that email was certainly a mistake ...

But it is also important to note that Steve Jobs called Gizmodo after the whole story was published (I guess so) this puts Gizmodo in very risky position if they don't give an CONVINCING explanation to their readers regarding whereabouts of iphone ... nobody will believe if they said that Steve Jobs called them and they returned the phone ...

If I were Gizmodo, I wud have called Jobs before publishing anything and got myself in his good books and I guess Jobs would have certainly returned my favor in one or other way ... alternatively If he (Jobs) called me after details were published, even then I wud have returned the phone by being as humble as possible at the same time making sure that I dont loose face in front of my readers (again I guess Steve Jobs wouldn't have ignored my favor)...

<comment><USER6> I'm sorry, but this logic is like saying that after you've paid for and beaten the hooker, well, you pretty much have to kill her, because otherwise she'll probably turn you in to the police...

<comment><USER5> what i'm trying to say is Gizmodo could have been humble and got more in return from Steve Jobs ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This bit made me do a double-take:

 _While in the residence, I observed Hogan utilize a black LG cellular telephone (bearing SN 911 KPFX363699) to make and receive telephone calls. Based upon my training and experience, I know that persons who buy and sell stolen property often use cellular devices to negotiate via telephone calls, email, and/or text message. I also know that the continued use of the phone would likely overwrite and destroy evidence that currently exists on the phone. Based upon the above facts and the fact that the cellular device was in plain view, I seized the phone as evidence and to prevent any further destruction of the digital evidence._

But then Warner seems pretty sketchy:

 _A records check through County Communications revealed two (2) outstanding misdemeanor warrants for Suspect Warner. Warner was subsequently arrested and handcuffed by Deputy Jim Goulart of the Sheriff's Office for the outstanding warrants only. While seated in the back of a patrol car, Warner made a spontaneous statement to Det. Josh McFall that he knew where the missing flash drive was located. Det. McFall read a Miranda Advisement to Warner and Warner waived his rights. Warner subsequently directed us to a bush located on the north side of Harding Ave at the intersection of Lancaster Way, Redwood City. In the bush, I located a 512 MB Memorex thumb drive and a 1GB Lexar Media compact flash card. The Lexar 1GB flash card appeared to be of the same type that would be utilized by the previously mentioned and seized Canon SLR camera.

At approximately 0230 hours, I went to the Chevron Gas Station located at 585 Whipple Avenue in Redwood City. I conducted a search of the premises and located the missing Apple prototype sticker in the parking lot near the entrance_

And this line was another odd one.

 _I therefore pray that a search warrant be issued._

<comment><USER8> "Pray" is a legal term. See definition (b) here:

<http://www.lawyers.com/glossary/pray.html>

<comment><USER9> As in the phrase "pray tell". I had no idea the archaic meaning survives in legalese. I wonder what other pieces of Middle English are floating in there.

<comment><USER10> In the UK it's not unheard of to use the term "pray tell" in parlance. Particularly in phrases like "And pray tell what did you get up to last night" expecting a stretching of the truth in return or tales of derring-do or misdemeanour moral offences.

<comment><USER9> That's the point: "Pray tell" is still common enough in contemporary English, while "pray" hasn't meant that for a long time. Archaisms survive in idioms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Let me see if I have this straight. It's alleged that Mr. Hogan was handed the phone in the bar by somebody else who thought it belonged to Mr. Hogan. Mr. Hogan then removed the phone, which didn't belong to him, from the bar, premises which didn't belong to him, without informing employees of the establishment where the phone was found and handed to him.

In what sense did Mr. Hogan "find" the phone?

I have previously suggested that removing a chattel that doesn't belong to you from property that doesn't belong to you is theft. Hearing these allegations doesn't change my view in any way. In the hypothetical case that someone hands you something that doesn't belong to you or to them, the correct thing to do on the spot is to refuse. Accepting something that doesn't belong to you is already wrong. The simplest and easiest thing to do is to simply say, "Not mine, but thanks."

<comment><USER12> I think everyone assumed he "found" the phone... until now. Previously we didn't have the whole story, so we just gave Hogan the benefit of the doubt.

<comment><USER11> > gave Hogan the benefit of the doubt.

I feel for Mr. Hogan and Mr. Lam. Of course, none of these allegations have been proven in court, so I have no idea what they actually did or did not do.

But my short time on this ball of rock and water has taught me that when people support you only to discover that you were a blackguard all along, their goodwill becomes countered by an equal and opposite reaction of contempt.

The people who shrugged their shoulders initially are probably still shrugging. But I predict that many of those who stood up and defended Mr. Hogan's and Mr. Lam's actions will swing to become their most vocal critics if these allegations are borne out. Nobody wants to feel like their good nature and trust has been abused, even if indirectly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Steve Jobs himself called Gizmodo editorial director Brian Lam to personally request that Gizmodo return the iPhone to Apple"

I imagine not going volcanic on that call was the hardest thing Steve Jobs has ever done.

<comment><USER14> I was going to mention when Jobs left Apple to create NeXT but creating the company that now _is_ Apple is more or less going nuclear.

<comment><USER14> I know you may not agree current Apple is NeXT, but:

\- Apple makes beautiful computers

\- ... that run a descendant of NeXTSTEP

\- ... with development tools that are direct descendants of the NeXT tools (down to the use of Objective-C)

Apple is a well funded NeXT. Jobs turned the post-Jobs Apple into NeXT 2.0

And that's a high compliment both to him and to Apple. Nobody would like to be 90's Apple.

<comment><USER15> I always refer to the Apple/NeXT acquisition as "the time NeXT bought Apple for negative $429 million."

<comment><USER14> On very rare occasions, vengeance is also very profitable ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I can't believe he just wrote that to Steve Jobs. No wonder Apple reacted the way they did. Gizmodo/Gawker is in big trouble.

<comment><USER17> Yes, the phrase _"Right now, we have nothing to lose."_ in particular stood out to me from the email - I think the author was being insufficiently imaginative.

<comment><USER11> I have to thank you, "insufficiently imaginative" is one of the phrases I am going to remember for a very long time.

<comment><USER18> I like "failure of imagination" myself:

The phrase failure of imagination has been used to describe the cause of the Apollo 1 fire in 1967. The term was attributed to astronaut Frank Borman, speaking at the Apollo 1 investigation hearings (dramatized in the HBO mini- series From the Earth to the Moon in 1998.) — wikipedia

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It certainly sounds shady to me. What I can't believe is Apple would even bend to Gizmodo by sending them the publishable letter.

It surprises me because I can't imagine Gizmodo having any right to withhold the phone from its rightful owner (Apple). Like "Oh we have your missing property, and we'd love to give it back, but you have to do something for us first". I don't know the legal system, but that just can't be right.

<comment><USER20> To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe Gizmodo was asking for proof that it was actually Apple's phone before they give it back. It would have (almost) been ok to state "give me proof." Instead, he rambled on about profits, and how this might hurt Apple, etc, which is pretty damning evidence IMHO - <USER2> though.

<comment><USER19> Ah, I hadn't thought of it like that. Still somewhat ridiculous, and a bit slimy but I suppose rational.

<comment><USER20> If I find a cell phone, I'm not going to give it away to the first person who comes forward about the "lost phone ad". I'm going to ask the person 20 questions to make sure it's really their phone (what color, brand, etc). If you look at this "at just the right light" you could _almost_ see it... until the editor went on about profits, etc.

It's an apple-branded phone ffs. The Gawker editor _clearly_ dug a hole for himself with that email, and Jobs was right to send in the dogs (as much as I hate to admit it)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's hard for me to believe that Bran Lam would feel invincible enough to write that response to Jobs, who is well known for going ballistic to end all ballistic when he gets wound up, without Denton's hand directly at his back . . .

What's missing is how much of this unfolding debacle (including the letter) was approved directly by Nick Denton?

</comment><comment><USER22> Brian Lam: worst poker face in the history of tech 'journalism'?

</comment><comment><USER23> Wow. What a seriously damaging email. Has this guy not heard of lunch?

<comment><USER24> This is Gizmodo we're talking about - the depth of their talents include things like griefing a conference by walking around with universal remotes turning people's presentation screens off, and inserting puns into technology news.

Extortion and coercion are clearly not their strength, though they seemed to think it was :)

<comment><USER25> I can't wait for them to do a story on Blackwater/Xe.

<comment><USER26> I'd rather have Blackwater pissed at me than Jobs. I can deal with being gunned down in an alley by mercenaries, but the idea of landing on Jobs's personal shit list is just plain scary.

There's a great line in _The Usual Suspects_ : "How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?" Lam must have thought that was a rhetorical question when he wrote that email. I'm sure he thinks different now.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, because being gunned down in an alleyway is much better than being indicted on counts of grand larceny and trade secret appropriation. Geez, have some perspective!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It seems Brian Lam has a little inferiority complex here. He wants to use the tactics of a tabloid and get the respect and access of the WSJ and NYT. The interesting part to me is Jobs said a few months ago he read Gizmodo. That's a pretty big nod of respect and legitimacy yet Brian Lam seems to have wanted even more validation from Apple. It almost sounds like he was trolling for an unreasonable PR gift from Apple or some other grand gesture. It would probably be unreasonable to prod or extort for equal access much less special privileges. Gizmodo just isn't that important compared to the WSJ and NYT. For the record I'm coming from the perspective of not being offended or upset Gizmodo perused this story aggressively. They're a tabloid. That's what they do. If you want real journalism go somewhere else. I'm more offended that they would try to extort Apple in an attempt to get special access. This e-mail reads like someone carefully skirting the line of blackmail. That makes it a much bigger issue than simply trade secrets.

</comment><comment><USER29> Check out the story, starting on page 16 of the embedded Scribd doc in this article, of the police making contact with the guys who found the phone. They allegedly tried to hide evidence in a church and a bush.

</comment><comment><USER30> I know this is O/T, but I'm finding it incredibly aggravating that I have to put my mouse in the border of the page to scroll the article, lest the Scribd Flash box steal my mousewheel movements... I'm guessing this is to do with the OSX Flash plugin's lack of internal mousewheel support.

</comment><comment><USER31> Great example of when you DON'T put shit in writing! Take note, fellas.

<comment><USER32> Take note that if each man had been on the telephone, later recalling what was said, or perhaps taking notes during the conversation, Lam would have been in just as much trouble if all those things were said. The only difference putting it in writing makes is improving the indisputability of the evidence. A finder of fact at trial could still believe Jobs over Lam even if nothing were put in writing.

<comment><USER31> _The only difference putting it in writing makes is improving the indisputability of the evidence_

IMO indisputability is a HUGE deal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Not to mitigate Brian Lam's douchiness. But while Apple's implicit filter on the media via "access journalism" might not be quite as blatant, it is far more evil.

</comment><comment><USER34> What dumbass thinks email is off the record?!

 _Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side._

<comment><USER35> When you exchange mail with journalists (yeah, yeah, have the argument about whether Gizmodo staff are journalists elsewhere) it's fairly common for them to clarify when they will not plan to directly quote a reply you send to them in a story.

<comment><USER34> If you want something off the record with journalists you CALL THEM. E-mail is never, EVER, off the record.

<comment><USER14> My phone can record every conversation that goes through it. I suspect any modern phone can do that.

<comment><USER36> But recordings of those calls are not always legal, and when they are legal to create, they are not always legal to use in court. There are much stricter laws around phone recordings than emails (because laws take half a century to change, and email's only been in wide use for 25)

<comment><USER32> My state follows the federal rule that EITHER party to a telephone conversation may record the entire conversation. What is admissible in court as evidence may not be as broad (in a particular case) as what evidence can be gathered by either party, but as I just mentioned in a comment I posted elsewhere in this thread, a conversation like that between Lam and Jobs can blow up in Lam's face even if the only evidence offered is courtroom testimony by Jobs regarding what Lam spoke, from Jobs's recollection of the conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> "Shady email"? How about a post title without the idiotic editorializing?

<comment><USER38> Shady is right.

I'm surprised he had the audacity to write some of this stuff..

"I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me."

wait for it... wait for it...

Gizmodo: "WE FOUND THE NEXT IPHONE!"

<comment><USER39> _Shady is right._

In fact one could say it is perilously close to blackmail.

<comment><USER40> "Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer "extortion". The "X" makes it sound cool."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I hate the general journalism bashing attitude being taken here. What Gizmodo did is unquestionably good for society as a whole, regardless of the legal technicalities.

Apple tries to maximize their profits by duping their customers. In the affidavit the Apple lawyer complains to the detective about all the sales they're going to lose when people find out about the new phone and don't buy the old model. But those lost sales are ill-gotten gains. That money comes out of the pockets of ill-informed customers that would not make the purchase if they had all the facts available to them.

It is exactly this kind of market manipulation that a free press helps protect us from. When a journalist writes a bad review or tells you that there are better deals elsewhere, he is "hurting overall sales and negatively effecting earnings" of that company, but it is benefiting consumers and society as a whole, and creating better more efficient markets.

Legally there might be some dispute, mainly because of the BS "trade secret" laws written by businesses for businesses, but morally I side 100% with Gizmodo's right to uncover and report the truth.

On a side note, the idea that cops can go around "seizing" cell phones and cameras without even having warrant is disgusting. And he doesn't even want the property returned, at the end of the affidavit he invokes some surely insane law to have the property "disposed of".

<comment><USER42> "And he doesn't even want the property returned, at the end of the affidavit he invokes some surely insane law to have the property "disposed of"."

Wow. Three seconds of research would have told you that this "insane law" does discuss the disposal of Chen's property... back to Chen. He's asking that as a courtesy to Chen, to make sure he gets his stuff back as soon as possible.

[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=pen...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=01001-02000&file=1407-1413)

<comment><USER41> OK, looks like I was wrong about that last line.</comment></comment></comment>


How to setup lighter, faster & minimal Ubuntu - <AUTHOR> http://ubuntu-snippets.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-to-setup-lighter-faster-minimal.html

<comment><USER2> It is now part of a standard server ISO image.

<http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download>

press F4 on the first screen and select "Install a minimal virtual machine"

</comment><comment><USER3> If JeOS (Just enough OS) only runs in virtualization, I'd tend to think of it more as NeOS.

</comment><comment><USER4> How about Xubuntu? I've set that up in QEMU vitual images, and it runs a _lot_ faster than Ubuntu. Oh, wait, I see. It's for farms of VMWare images. Ever mind.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ah how timely I was just going to install Ubuntu on Vmware.

</comment><comment><USER6> Minimal ubuntu includes gnome? That is way overkill.

<comment><USER7> JeOS itself does not even include an X server. It's designed for farms of virtual machines. I think it would be a slick platform to run on ec2 but Amazon supplies their own kernel images. My guess is that the article poster just wants a small Ubuntu to run on their local box, but doesn't feel comfortable using a pure command-line interface.</comment></comment>


Detroit's Historic United Sound Systems Recording Studio Saved by State - <AUTHOR> https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2019/01/11/united-sound-recording-studio-saved-mdot/2549585002/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a unique Detroit story, USS was actually saved twice. The first time was by a large drug dealer who bought and restored it. He got the building declared as historic and began tours for the public. The second time by the state which is merely moving it out of the way of a new freeway.</comment>


Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/06/12/americans-lets-stop-investing-in-our-kids/ <comment><USER2> The article pretends

\- That the current salaries of recent college graduates represent their probable average output over their lifetime. This is absurd for reasons that I hope I don't need to explain to all you startup founders.

\- That the salary of a graduate is a total representation of that person's value to society (and, transitively, of their education). This is wrong even if you think the total value of an education is in employment. Economics teaches us that for all voluntary economic transactions there are producer and consumer surpluses. It must therefore be the case that an employed person's value to their employer is at least the salary the person is paid. And as cynical as I am about college education sometimes, even I don't believe that the complete value of the education is in its utility for the labor market.

\- That there is a reliable way to make a ten percent return on investment overseas. Not as far as I've been able to find, and if you can find it you could probably make a lot of money selling the information to a big player in the American bond market.

\- And that the normal personal investment into a college education is really $300,000. This is anti-factual. It is probably also wrong that each marginal elementary schooler costs $200,000, but I can't say for sure about that.

As rhetoric, this article plays well. As honest observation of the American educational system, it's a miserable failure.

<comment><USER3> What this article does successfully through hyperbole is to remind us to add opportunity costs into evaluating the value of an education. Your quibbles about the obviously rough numbers don't subtract much from that key point. It obviously doesn't make sense to abandon education, but it also obviously doesn't make sense to pay $500k for it.

"That the current salaries of recent college graduates represent their probable average output over their lifetime." It doesn't represent that at all. It is saying that the value due to education can be roughly approximated by the starting salary. The gains from there are then more based on experience/work, not the education. Of course, you ignore the money made while you would have been in school. You also ignore the periods of unemployment.

"I don't believe that the complete value of the education is in its utility for the labor market." The fundamental question though is how much we should pay for it. I could read books, do "home work", and watch MIT lectures on the internet for a lower price. Many people are looking for ROI.

"That there is a reliable way to make a ten percent return on investment overseas." A rough number, but definitely too high. The world is over-invested anyway as a result of too much money having been created.

"And that the normal personal investment into a college education is really $300,000. This is anti-factual. It is probably also wrong that each marginal elementary schooler costs $200,000, but I can't say for sure about that." I don't think it says personal investment, the distributed cost counts too. It costs about 20k per year here for elementary school and 25k for high school, to be conservative. You don't need to look at the marginal costs here, because they are your costs.

<comment><USER4> _"That the current salaries of recent college graduates represent their probable average output over their lifetime." It doesn't represent that at all. It is saying that the value due to education can be roughly approximated by the starting salary. The gains from there are then more based on experience/work, not the education. Of course, you ignore the money made while you would have been in school. You also ignore the periods of unemployment._

That is indeed what it says, but that reasoning is wrong.

He's commenting that most of these expensive kids are unemployed and therefore make nothing. That is due to the economy. However the first job they get is likely to be at a higher salary than non-college students, and a college degree enjoys a permanent advantage throughout life in getting jobs and getting raises.

Even several years out of college, many employers will look at the presence of a degree when hiring. And it is an advantage again if you need to switch careers. (Which is becoming very common.)

<comment><USER5> _And it [a college degree] is an advantage again if you need to switch careers. (Which is becoming very common.)_

But where's the educational correlation between a degree in a specific discipline and a change to what is presumably a different discipline? If I have a degree in Literature, I'm an editor at a publishing firm, and I get fired and then get a job in, say, the biological sciences, how is my degree intrinsically an advantage other than as a barrier to entry (a weeding-out tool) to the professional class, which is not purely educational in nature?

<comment><USER4> You've put your finger on an important issue. For the person with a degree, there is an advantage in passing that barrier to entry. But why is that barrier to entry there?

From the point of view of the employer, a degree indicates that the possessor has, among other things, a certain level of intelligence, literacy (not a small deal in a country where over half the country is functionally illiterate!), experience in learning, general background, work ethic, and socio-economic status. It is therefore a somewhat useful filter to apply for many professions.

Of course most of those traits have nothing to do with what you actually _learned_ in university. And there certainly are plenty of successful people with all of those traits who did not bother with university. So even though I believe that for most people, education is worthwhile to that person, I'm far less certain that society as a whole benefits much from all of the money spent on higher education. (And I become even less certain when I look at how wasteful the process has become. Costs have been going up faster than inflation for decades, with no apparent reason than that everyone in the process knows that they are free to raise costs by that much, and it is always easier to spend more money than it is to spend less.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think HN has missed one of Greenspun's points - that we always talk about "investing in our children's future" but never actually consider whether the investment (usually of public money, i.e. tax dollars for K-12, then crushing debt from the parents for college) actually stands the test of financial sense.

<comment><USER7> No, I think that's specifically the point I take issue with. An educated polity is a social necessity in a democracy - and we are failing at creating an educated polity.

So there's no question to me that educating people stands the test of financial sense. It's a question apart from finance, and essential to our future.

However, I do think it's fair to ask whether the money being spent is more than is necessary to properly educate our citizens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> a) He compares a 300k education over 4 yeards with an average master degree income. I have no idea about prices in the US but i would be very surprised if the decent, but not stellar schools have a 50k/year tuition (using 100k as living expenses).

b) We have the same discussion in germany where universities are free. The general consensus about getting a degree seems to be that it is barely worth it (considering opportunity cost and taxes on higher income).

c) I think we see a shift in the value of college degrees and need to change our mindset. In the old days only a small percentage of the population had a degree, yielding a guaranteed job and good career opportunities. Today nearly everybody has a degree and therefore the value goes down. I think people have to learn that a degree is not the road to riches and that they actually have to work and learn to get a good job. Another myth is this: I can have the same job my father had and he didnt need a college degree. That is just plain wrong. To do the same job your father did, you need a much higher education today. Accountant with a short certificate in the old days become B.A. in economics today. Simple configuration which might be done by a clever industrial mechanic in the 60s need a complete engineer degree today.

<comment><USER9> The $300k includes opportunity cost. That means it's tuition plus living cost plus four years of whatever after-tax salary you can make with a high school degree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Or, we just learn to be more frugal when it comes to higher education. It doesn't matter at all where I get my diploma from, I just need one to get anywhere. If I can manage to go to a public college and pay <10k a year for it, that's awesome. If I can get other people, such as scholarship places, or the university itself, to give me enough money, I can essentially get a "free" higher education.

I have a good friend whose family is paying nothing for him to attend UCLA. Personally, I'm not so lucky/dilligent about applying for scholarships.

<comment><USER11> The value of a Harvard (or any elite college) education is not in what you learn but in the brand name. _That_ is what people are willing to pay a fortune for. And the brand name does have a value associated with it - it cuts down on the friction of getting through the initial stages to an interview at which a hiring decision will be made, for example. Is this right or wrong? Well, if historically graduates from a certain college have been a safe bet, then there is value for an organization in continuing to hire from there (even if only in time saved). If historically access to an alumni network is valuable, then that has value. Etc, etc.

That's not to say they don't offer a great education, and a great experience of being immersed in a world where everyone is smart and ambitious for a few years. Similarly that immersion is part of the education. But that is another little secret: elite colleges only admit students who would succeed regardless.

I attended an elite college for undergrad (which one doesn't matter) and viewed from that side, it's hard to see if it actually made a difference in my career vs any college. I've never explicitly seen an interviewer be impressed by it. But behind the scenes, for example, I don't see if there were a hundred applicants and mine made it through the initial screening because of that.

<comment><USER12> In some fields the value should be better determined by one's previous work (the portfolio). That has traditionally been true for designers and artist for example, but today it should also be true for software developers.

There are so many open source projects that companies should be asked "what open source project have you contributed to?" and "show and explain that code to me".

Basically that is what got me my job. My GPA was high and I worked my butt off for 5 years to get it, but it was a small open source project that got noticed and used as the basis of selection.

<comment><USER11> I agree, and 5 years out of college no-one should care where you went, or at least, care very little compared to what you did in the meantime. But like I say, you don't get to see what happens behind the scenes. The truth is, it's human nature to seek out the pre-qualified, and all other things being equal (as they are with a fresh graduate) diploma + brand will always beat diploma alone.

It's interesting you mention open source. Sometimes I interview kids who claim x years experience and what they mean is, "I've been programming since I was 8 years old". Which is great but experience here means a) stuff you were paid to do or b) in a well-known open source package (e.g. Apache). The experience a company is interested in is experience not of _coding_ but of "transforming a spec into a product".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> America (and we are not alone) is in a race to the bottom. Just like Coke and Pepsi spend more an more each year on advertising,-- because the other does the same -- doesn't mean they are making that much more in profits each year. The same can be said for education: Costly perks need to be added because "the other guy is doing it", and in the end, we just pay more for (mostly) what we had before. Seriously, has basic calculus changed so much in 30 years?

<comment><USER14> I would hope most students learn a lot more than basic calculus in four years of college.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I went to public schools through high school and then, on scholarship, to the local public university. I doubt my family "invested" more than $10k in my entire education. Whatever it cost, it's certainly repaid itself many times over since then.

The great thing about coding for a living is that most companies care more about what you can do than the name on your diploma.

</comment><comment><USER16> How about an added value in a well educated person. Like he or she feels better about themselves, is more likely to contribute to society with things as art (or open source software) as well as more likely to succeed starting a new business and bring in even more of that MONEY.

</comment><comment><USER17> In 1996, Ireland made college education basically free, creating an even more educated work force. [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print)

</comment><comment><USER17> Why not send American kids to China or India for education?

</comment><comment><USER18> So the only reason for education is to produce more money?

</comment><comment><USER2> I can't take an article seriously that claims we'd be better off without doctors and hospitals. Whatever fallacy that's called, I'm definitely guilty.

<comment><USER19> He's showing that things are screwed up. We're spending _too_ much on education for what we are getting in return. He's claiming that the system is wholly inefficient. He's just extending that to the health care system in that one-liner.

More generally: "For the amount of money that we are putting into <blank>, we should be getting more value out of it."

<comment><USER20> The article _is_ basically claiming that if a doctor earns $100k a year, and costs, say, $1m in funds to be able to complete his or her extended studies (that take many years), then creating that doctor is not a worthwhile investment for parents or for society.

That's wrong on so many levels that I won't even bother to argue with it.

<comment><USER21> > The article is basically claiming that if a {knowledge} earns ${number} > year, and costs, say, ${bigger_number} in funds to be able to complete his > or her extended studies (that take many years), then creating that notfunh > is not a worthwhile investment for parents or for society.

For a given value of {knowledge}, there are values of {number} and {bigger number} for which that statement is true. There are other values for which it is false.

Suppose, for example, it cost $1b to train a straw basketweaver and society was only willing to pay $10k for said basketweaver's output. That's not a worthwhile investment. And substituting doctor for basketweaver doesn't much change things.

Absent force, salary/compensation doesn't capture all of the value that society places on an occupation, but it isn't hugely wrong either.

<comment><USER21> > For a given value of {knowledge}, there are values of {number} and {bigger > number} for which that statement is true. There are other values for which > it is false.

Actually, there are values of {number} and {bigger number} for which that statement is true regardless of the value of {knowledge}.

I suspect that there are values for which it is always false as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Invest in promising startups not Chinese Pizza Huts, goddammit!

</comment><comment><USER23> Read the article. Visited link to Wikipedia article? Daymit, how you can SURVIVE on 35K a year in USA??? Maybe somewhere in Mississippi, but not in North USA. Still, you'll have to eat random crap from 7-11 and macdonalds...

<comment><USER24> Really, it's not that hard. Conservative estimates:

Wages: 35k

Taxes: 10.5k

Rent: 1000/mo = 12k

Utilities: 200/mo = 2.4k

Transportation (car): 200/mo+200/mo = 4.8k

Food: 400/mo = 4.8k

Total: 34.5k

Get a roommate, use public transportation, get rid of TV, make your own meals, and you could probably put 5-8k in the bank each year. Even if you're living in NYC, it should be pretty easy to "survive" on 35k a year.

<comment><USER25> For me (the differences) --

Rent [1]: 300/mo = 3.6k

Transportation [2]: 100/mo = 1.2k

Food [3]: 250/mo = 3k

Total: 20.7k

Obviously that leaves a lot of things out, but that is what the other $14K+ is for. If you can't live on 35K, I'm guessing it's because you're either carrying too much debt, or you've convinced yourself you _need_ to spend $X/mo on a car/living in <expensive city>/whatever when you really don't.

[1] Right now I actually am renting an entire house with one roommate and we each pay $125/mo, but we are renting from a friend. Before I moved here, I paid about $240 a month. I could easily find a place under $300/mo here in Columbus, OH.

[2] I don't have a car right now; instead I use public transportation or ride with my roommate or other friends. Even giving my friends gas money and renting a car once a month or so would only come to 1-1.5K per year.

[3] I could easily get by on about $125/mo for groceries. Doubling that allows me to go out a couple times a week as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Lets start investing in our kids across the board.

State and federal funding for schools is inadequate. Wealthy areas invest additional money in education to bring the quality up to acceptable. Poorer areas cannot do so. Its an injustice that children from less affluent areas cannot get a good education in a public school, cannot have the same educational opportunities as students from more affluent areas.

Inequality in education is one of our most pressing problems, and yet nobody talks about it because it doesn't effect the affluent.

<comment><USER27> If we don't invest enough why are per pupil expenditures highest in poor quality urban districts? Perhaps the "investment" isn't being well-spent-- which I believe is Philip's real point in the OP.

<comment><USER26> [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/expenditures/tables/table_03.asp...](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/expenditures/tables/table_03.asp?referrer=report)

$10,300. That is what we actually spend per pupil as a nation.

Look here: <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/expenditures/tables/table_01.asp>

See the large variance in state and local spending? Much of that is inequality.

To address your question: your assertion is factually incorrect. Some cities spend more in inner city schools, and some spend less. The real inequalities lie in rural schools.</comment></comment></comment>


Cdb is a fast, reliable, simple package for creating and reading constant databases. - <AUTHOR> http://cr.yp.to/cdb.html <comment><USER2> Here's a good public domain implementation: <http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/tinycdb.html></comment>